101–108 of 108 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Practically no one is against hard science research, properly conducted. As long as you do that with your own money (or money got freely given from other people), sure. If you use taxpayer money, that's a different game.
There is a long list of grievances I have regarding the (mis-) use of taxpayer money, and funding the hard sciences is way, way down. I can’t even see it from where I stand.
There's this crowd on HN which is very vocal against academia. From what I've seen, the main points are that academia isn't efficient, most of the science coming out of academia is useless and that the whole system is just a waste of taxpayers money. Instead, what is often argued, all good research is done in private labs. Then pointing to SpaceX, Moderna, OpenAI, Google, etc. And while it is very true that often the…
Where is "this crowd" that you are talking about? The closest to that that I've seen is that traditional academia approaches are too far removed from practical applications for highly applied fields like software engineering, or too slow for fast-moving fields like modern day ML (thus, all the preprints).
In the same room with Illuminati, Yeti, and Chupacabra.
The current AI boom has more to do with NVIDIA, and the popularity of computer gaming giving us GPU compute, than who was using neural networks back in 1990's. More specifically, it was really AlexNet, the 2012 ImageNet entry, running on two NVIDIA GTX 580's, that highlighted the practicality and utility of running large scale neural nets on affordable hardware. CUDA had been released in 2006, but cuDNN (the CUDA lib…
I always wondered if it weren't crypto and the ALUs those algos ran on that hit the green button ...
The current AI boom has more to do with NVIDIA, and the popularity of computer gaming giving us GPU compute, than who was using neural networks back in 1990's. More specifically, it was really AlexNet, the 2012 ImageNet entry, running on two NVIDIA GTX 580's, that highlighted the practicality and utility of running large scale neural nets on affordable hardware. CUDA had been released in 2006, but cuDNN (the CUDA lib…
> Schmidhuber's continual reminding everyone that he was working on neural nets back in the 1990s is beyond tiresome. Yes, he should have been recognized alongside Hinton/Bengio/LeCun as one of the pioneers, but time for him to get over it. Not getting a turing award / nobel prize for your life's work, when other's got it for the same thing, I certainly would not get over that. To a comment like that, I would just th…
The nomination process is private, so it's not publicly known who nominated Bengio/Hinton/LeCun, but given the common CIFAR connection it might be a reasonable guess that someone there might have organized the nomination, maybe self-initiated with the goal of it reflecting well on the organization, or perhaps lobbied for by the recipients.
The current AI boom has more to do with NVIDIA, and the popularity of computer gaming giving us GPU compute, than who was using neural networks back in 1990's. More specifically, it was really AlexNet, the 2012 ImageNet entry, running on two NVIDIA GTX 580's, that highlighted the practicality and utility of running large scale neural nets on affordable hardware. CUDA had been released in 2006, but cuDNN (the CUDA lib…
> highlighted the practicality and utility of running large scale neural nets on affordable hardware I always wondered if it weren't crypto and the ALUs those algos ran on that hit the green button ...
The existence of cheap parallel processing was certainly a necessary enabler for large neural networks to take off.
I don't know who else may have experimented with using GPUs for neural nets before 2012 (not so easy since it required hand coding everything in raw CUDA - no framework support), but AlexNet drew a lot of attention (it was a very dramatic win of the ImageNet 2012 competition - the first neural net entrant, and a win by a very large margin), and large neural net research just accelerated from there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
well, so you think, all parts and peoples of USSR were voluntarily part of USSR?
No, not all, though you will be surprised how many convinced communists were even in Lithuania, to pick one example (a fact which today's Lithuania hides). And do you think the people in Europe are voluntarily a part of your undeclared, but very much existing, empire?
I think most people are voluntary part of the EU or Germany. Both aren't empires because the broad majority of people living in these entities wants to be part of the entity.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/700661/earns-steady-high-approv...
Did you seriously assume I am from the US?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, not all, though you will be surprised how many convinced communists were even in Lithuania, to pick one example (a fact which today's Lithuania hides). And do you think the people in Europe are voluntarily a part of your undeclared, but very much existing, empire?
"And do you think the people in Europe are voluntarily a part of your undeclared, but very much existing, empire?" I think most people are voluntary part of the EU or Germany. Both aren't empires because the broad majority of people living in these entities wants to be part of the entity. https://news.gallup.com/poll/700661/earns-steady-high-approv... Did you seriously assume I am from the US?
No, people are not "voluntarily" part of EU. They are forced to, since otherwise they are being presented with the prospective of even greater poverty and external threats (Greece for example; Hungary - one should not be deceived by the election of "pro EU candidate". Not only them of course). And because in effect EU means Germany (and there are a lot of people, surely of my age, who dont want to have nothing to do with post 1930s Germany - if they can).
Do you think it was all that different with USSR, at least after Stalin (remember also that times were different)? I lived in Vilnius. No "we are under occupation" there (not in the mainstream).. not until 1980s, when the economical gap between USSR and the west became too evident, to my feeling.
But you are presented deliberately with a false (worse, half true) picture of the past. Under the guise of western historiography.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, is totally fine to create new inventions, but let others take credit and financial benefits. It is our duty to protect and get the benefits of European inventions, especially the ones financed with public tax. Open for everybody means benefits for everybody.
Honestly can't tell if sarcasm. Are you seriously proposing that all university research just stop and be replaced with some new proprietary system?
I would continue explaining further but you can´t distinguish sarcasm :/